American radio DJ Dave Herman has been arrested for allegedly arranging to have sex with a minor. Source: Getty Images Photo: Taylor Hill
Late last month, a prominent 77-year-old New York identity was arrested for attempting to arrange a seven-year-old girl’s transportation from New Jersey to the Virgin Islands so he could sexually abuse her.
This is how various news outlets headlined the story:
All of these articles (and more if you care to find them) go on to detail how Herman, thinking he was communicating online with a single mother, was actually chatting to an undercover federal law enforcement official. He attempted to arrange for the mother and daughter to fly to the tropical islands, “so he could engage in sexual activity with the child there.”
What none of these stories say is what Herman actually planned to do: rape a seven year old.
I understand that there is legal jargon involved regarding what Herman is officially charged with (illegal sexual activity) but it is worrying that all the official news reports on this incident fail to specify that all “sexual activity” with a child is in fact statutory rape and child abuse.
“Sex” is a consensual activity. Under no circumstances is a seven year old capable of consenting to sex. Adults do not have sex with children. They rape them.
This may seem rather obvious until you consider how often it is forgotten by the lawyers and judges in child rape cases.
“The girl is predatory in all her actions and she is sexually experienced.” So said Richard Colver, the prosecutor -yes, prosecutor- in a recent case in the UK involving the abuse of a 14 year old girl by a 41 year old man, Neil Wilson.
Wilson was found guilty but given a suspended sentence by the judge Nigel Peters, who was swayed to go easy on the now-convicted pedophile by “the prosecution's comments that the girl looked and behaved older than she was.”
“The girl was predatory and was egging you on”, continued the judge but “that is no defence when it comes to children”, he finished, right before he is used it to defend his decision to spare the man a prison sentence.
It was left up to the convicted man’s defence lawyer (!) to warn that Wilson, who was released into the community, still “poses a risk to children.”
This case is not unique as the sad case of “Mary Doe” in Louisiana attests. Mary Doe, who is now 20, was raped at the age of 14 by one of her guards at a juvenile detention centre. The guard, Angelo Vickers is now in jail but the case before the District Court Judge, George Larke, concerns whether the victim qualifies for compensation.
Attorneys for the local government insist she is not entitled to damages because “Vickers could not have engaged in sexual relations within the walls of the detention center without cooperation from the victim…Vickers did not use force, violence or intimidation when engaging in sexual relations.”
There it is again. “Sexual Relations.” Vickers is in jail for statutory rape. A 14-year-old girl in Louisiana, where the age of consent is 17, cannot legally give consent, as these laywers would be well aware.
Ignoring the obvious fact that the guard-prisoner relationship makes the power imbalance even more skewed, one official who wisely chose to remain anonymous remarked, “These girls in the detention center are not Little Miss Muffin.”
Not Little Miss Muffin? I guess he means they are “Sexually Experienced”, which presumably makes them veritable Lolitas, imitators of that fictional 12 year old hussy who shamelessly seduces her mother’s innocent husband after predatorily egging him on by pretending she was older than she really was “girl who is kidnapped and raped by a man who came into her life as a stepfather figure, for three years.”
It’s not just lawyers and judges who employ the Lolita defence. After an 11-year-old girl was gang-raped in Texas, much of the community outrage was directed against the victim and her parents. "Where were they when this girl was seen wandering at all hours with no supervision and pretending to be much older?", one resident asked the local paper.
This is the same victim about which the New York Times journalist James C. McKinley Jnr, notoriously wrote, “she dressed older than her age, wearing makeup and fashions more appropriate to a woman in her 20s. She would hang out with teenage boys at a playground, some said.”
“She” was an 11-year-old child who according to her mother, “still loved stuffed bears.”
Words are powerful. Language both drives and reflects our culture. When a government official says certain girls are not “Little Miss Muffin”, he is referencing and propagating the virgin-whore dichotomy, that reductive idiom that permits women and girls to be judged by past (irrelevant) behaviour rather than present circumstances.
When we frame child rape victims as cunning Lolitas and their adult attackers as hapless Humbert Humberts, then we perpetuate the rape culture -yes rape culture- that pretends to abhor rape but, when faced with it, find ways to excuse the rapist and implicate the victim.
And when we refer to the abuse of children as “sex” it helps pave the way to the above by minimising the crime. It implies - even if unintended- a level of complicity from the child, a complicity that a child is just not mentally or emotionally or legally able to give.
It is incredible how often it has to be said but under no circumstances can a child consent to sex with an adult. Not when she is seven. Not when she is 11. Not when she is 13. Even the original Humbert Humbert himself knew this when, at the end of the novel, the character admits he deprived Lolita of her childhood.
When 77-year-old Dave Herman attempted to transport a seven-year-old girl to the Virgin Islands, he did not do so with the intention of having sex with her. It is with the intention of raping her.